Pro-Clinton Site Verrit Doesn't Know What 'Facts' Are

Matt has written before about the gem of the website that is Verrit, which purports itself to be news for people who still aren't over the election results Hillary Clinton voters. Verrit, the brainchild of Clinton superfan Peter Daou, has an unusual system of "Verrits" that act as fact-checkers for "fake news" type things. The site is, to be blunt, poorly designed, confusing, and doesn't really have a solid grasp on how there's a difference between "fact" and "opinion."

Take, for instance, this absolute gem of a paragraph that went viral on Twitter over the weekend. This paragraph was part of a larger Verrit that alleged that "Every Major Media Narrative About 2016 Is Demonstrably False."

FACT: Hillary Clinton is the first woman in history to become the presidential nominee of a major party. Would anyone characterize that as a “flaw?” Singling out Hillary Clinton as “flawed” when all humans are flawed has a decidedly sexist tinge. There is nothing particularly flawed about working a lifetime to become one of the most accomplished women in political history.

Furthermore, the incessant “flawed’ narrative is wrong on its face. Hillary Clinton’s approval rating after she left the State Department was a stunning 69% in a WSJ poll. She entered the 2016 race in a very strong position and was immediately met with a character assassination campaign unseen in U.S. politics. This Gallup chart illustrates the effect of the systematic demonization of Clinton:

Hoo boy. That's a lot to unpack. Let's break this down sentence by sentence:

"FAKE: Hillary Clinton was a "flawed" candidate." This appears to be an opinion. Clinton didn't win the election, so by default she was not a perfect candidate--meaning that she had a flaw.

"FACT: Hillary Clinton is the first woman in history to become the presidential nominee of a major party." This is a fact. Well done.

"Would anyone characterize that as a 'flaw?'" This is not a fact. This is an opinion. Also, Clinton's gender isn't the reason why she was described as a flawed candidate.

"Singling out Hillary Clinton as 'flawed' when all humans are flawed has a decidedly sexist tinge." This is also not a fact. Clinton was not "singled out" as flawed during the campaign. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Trump, who are not women, were repeatedly called out for their flaws throughout the campaign.

"There is nothing particularly flawed about working a lifetime to become one of the most accomplished women in political history." This is also not a fact. This is an opinion.

"Furthermore, the incessant 'flawed’ narrative is wrong on its face." This is an opinion. Also, two sentences ago it was admitted that Clinton had flaws. Figure out your own narrative.

"Hillary Clinton’s approval rating after she left the State Department was a stunning 69% in a WSJ poll." This is a fact.

"She entered the 2016 race in a very strong position and was immediately met with a character assassination campaign unseen in U.S. politics." This is an opinion. Also, see "Romney, Mitt" if we're going to discuss character assassination campaigns. Running for president is not for the weak of heart.

The Verrit then links to a graph showing how Clinton's approval rating took a nosedive as the 2016 election began. This makes sense--people got to see Clinton up close and were exposed to a whole host of anti-Clinton rhetoric as part of the campaign. This is a thing that happens in politics, and it's not unusual. Comedian Norm MacDonald made a point in June that he had been making the same comments about Clinton for 20 years, and there was basically no effort on Clinton's part to rehabilitate her image. This is a problem that ultimately cost Clinton on Election Day.

Clinton was not a perfect candidate, and the sooner her fanboys accept this, the sooner they can move on from the election. It's not healthy to live in a fake reality.